M/S ASCENDAS SERVICE (INDIA) PVT LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

47 YEARS, R/AT NO.6 CLIFTON BUILDING 2ND FLOOR RICHMOND ROAD BANGALORE-560 025. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.B.HARISH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX BANGALORE, EAST COMMISSIONERATE BMTC/TTMC OLD AIRPORT ROAD BENGALURU -560071 2 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER - EAST DIVISION-7 BANGALORE EAST COMMISSIONER ATE BMTC BUS STAND HAL AIRPORT ROAD DOMMALURU BENGALURU-560071 3 . ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ARREARS RECOVERY CELL GST COMMISSIONERATE

M/S CONFIDENT GROUP vs. MR. AKHIL C

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N S SANJAY GOWDA

condonation of delay, which came to be rejected on 28.05.2019 and the application filed to set aside the order placing the judgment debtors exparte, also came to be rejected by order dated 05.07.2019. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the decree holder, District Commission by order dated 23.10.2019 - Annexure-J (hereinafter referred to as 'original order') allowed

SRI MUNINAGA REDDY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice B. Veerappa Writ Petition No.25553/2018 (T-It) Between:

47(Kar.) wherein this Court while considering the appeal under the provisions of Section 85 of the Finance Act, has condoned the delay

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, vs. M/S GANGAGEN BIOTECHNOLOGIES P LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed following the judgment in the aforesaid case

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING FOR REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 21-03-2012 PASSED IN ITA 783/2009, ON THE - - 2 FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE. THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS N. KUMAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: - ORDER The Revenue is seeking to review the order passed by this

THE CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES vs. MR. GOPAL S HEBBALLI

Appeals are dismissed as not

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice K. Natarajan Criminal Appeal No.100124/2022 C/W Criminal Appeal Nos. 100123/2022, 100125/2022, 100126/2022, 100127/2022, 100130/2022, 100131/2022, 100132/2022, 100133/2022, 100134/2022, 100135/2022, 100136/2022, 100137/2022, 100138/2022, 100139/2022, 100140/2022, 100141/2022, 100142/2022, 100143/2022, 100144/2022, 100145/2022, 100172/2022, 100173/2022, 100026/2022, 100077/2022, 100078/2022, 100079/2022, 100080/2022, 100081/2022, 100082/2022, 100083/2022, 100084/2022, 100085/2022, 100086/2022, 100090/2022, 100091/2022, 100092/2022, 100093/2022, 100094/2022, 100095/2022, 100114/2022

47 aggrieved complainant has to file an appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. but not a revision, as evidence of some of the witness was already recorded, therefore, it cannot be said as ‘discharge’. Further, the definition of Section 258 of Cr.P.C. reads “in any other case, release the accused and such release shall have the effect of discharge”. That

M/S SPOORTHI SADAN CONVENT, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

Bench: JAYANT M PATEL,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DTD: 17.02.2016 PASSED IN THE ITA NO.100066/2015 ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE HIGH COUR OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS ALONG WITH I.A.I/16 THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 4 ORDER As such, in both the matters, there

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SMT. T. MANJULA

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,JAYANT PATEL

47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED:06/02/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO. 479/2009, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 7 ORDER All the interim applications are for condonation of delay (except in RP 378/15) as well

PRINICPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/ S SECON PVT LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED:06/02/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO. 479/2009, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 7 ORDER All the interim applications are for condonation of delay (except in RP 378/15) as well

SARVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri

delay in the payment of gratuity and whether the Controlling 48 Authority’s permission is obtained by the employer for not paying the gratuity. If an employee has not made an application/s for the payment of gratuity before the employer/Controlling Authority, or if he has not produced the documents in support of his claims, the proviso to Section

M/S HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as

Bench: JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA,S.SUJATHA

condonation of delay, without considering the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court? : 5 : ii) Whether the order of the Tribunal can be held to be good in law, when it dismissed the appeal of the appellant solely on the ground of limitation without examining the merits of the appeal especially against the background that the subject-amounts involved

SRI. FATHERAJ SINGHVI vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

47 of the judgment in the Shirur Mutt case that: (SCR p. 1043) “(i)f the money thus paid is set apart and appropriated specifically for the performance of such work and is not merged in the public revenues for the benefit of the general public, it could be counted as fee and not a tax" may not be very

M/S MAHRISHI MELTCHEMS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

47 of the judgment in the Shirur Mutt case that: (SCR p. 1043) “(i)f the money thus paid is set apart and appropriated specifically for the performance of such work and is not merged in the public revenues for the benefit of the general public, it could be counted as fee and not a tax" may not be very

MINTENT SERVICED APARTMENTS PVT LTD., vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

47 of the judgment in the Shirur Mutt case that: (SCR p. 1043) “(i)f the money thus paid is set apart and appropriated specifically for the performance of such work and is not merged in the public revenues for the benefit of the general public, it could be counted as fee and not a tax" may not be very

ECOLE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

47 of the judgment in the Shirur Mutt case that: (SCR p. 1043) “(i)f the money thus paid is set apart and appropriated specifically for the performance of such work and is not merged in the public revenues for the benefit of the general public, it could be counted as fee and not a tax" may not be very

M/S. K K BROTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

47 of the judgment in the Shirur Mutt case that: (SCR p. 1043) “(i)f the money thus paid is set apart and appropriated specifically for the performance of such work and is not merged in the public revenues for the benefit of the general public, it could be counted as fee and not a tax" may not be very

M/S PRAKASH BUS CORPORATION PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

47 of the judgment in the Shirur Mutt case that: (SCR p. 1043) “(i)f the money thus paid is set apart and appropriated specifically for the performance of such work and is not merged in the public revenues for the benefit of the general public, it could be counted as fee and not a tax" may not be very

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

47 of the judgment in the Shirur Mutt case that: (SCR p. 1043) “(i)f the money thus paid is set apart and appropriated specifically for the performance of such work and is not merged in the public revenues for the benefit of the general public, it could be counted as fee and not a tax" may not be very

DR V. NARAYANASWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

47 of the judgment in the Shirur Mutt case that: (SCR p. 1043) “(i)f the money thus paid is set apart and appropriated specifically for the performance of such work and is not merged in the public revenues for the benefit of the general public, it could be counted as fee and not a tax" may not be very